Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 2015

759 judgments, newest first — showing 401–600.

FARUK ILAHI TAMBOLI &ANR.versusB.S. SHANKARRAO KOKATE (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2015 INSC 76814 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased a 9.7 sq m shop in 1980 and later served notice to the tenant for non‑payment of rent and claimed a bona‑fide need to use the premises for their own betel‑nut and betel‑leaf retail business. The tenant contested, arguing that the appellants were jointly operating a family business, had acquired

SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusTHE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2015 INSC 77014 October 2015Dismissed

The appellants challenged the Bihar Public Service Commission’s (BPSC) decision to use moderation rather than scaling in evaluating answer scripts for the 53rd‑55th Combined Competitive Examinations, alleging that the method violated a 2011 High Court order and the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Singh. The Court ex

N. SUNKANNAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2015 INSC 76914 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Deputy Tahsildar, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.300 from a fair‑price shop owner and was caught in a trap where tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. The complainant later turned hostile, and no other witness testified to the demand. The trial and High Courts convicted

M/S PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA

2015 INSC 65914 September 2015Matter referred to larger bench

The appellants, Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd., challenged a Kerala High Court order that limited interest on solatium to the period after 19 September 2001, the date of the Sunder judgment. The land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court had awarded enhanced compensation incl

BHANUBEN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2015 INSC 66114 September 2015Case Partly allowed

The deceased woman repeatedly fled her matrimonial home due to alleged dowry harassment and cruelty by her husband, mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law, and filed complaints and a maintenance suit. She later died after ingesting poison, claiming it was a mistake, and gave a dying declaration to that effect. The trial court

STATE OF KERALA & ORS.versusM.K.JOSE

2015 INSC 57614 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Kerala terminated a road‑improvement contract with contractor M.K. Jose for alleged non‑completion and forfeited his security deposit. The contractor filed multiple writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the termination, extensions of time and denial of revised estimates. The High Court’s single judg

KAPOOR CHAND (DEAD)versusASSTT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

2015 INSC 100214 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Kapoor Chand (deceased), had two trusts created for his minor children, Priti Life Trust and Anuj Family Trust. The trustees, who were also partners in a partnership firm, received the firm's profits, but the trust deeds stipulated that the income could not be distributed to the children until they attai

KIRPAL KAURversusJITENDER PAL SINGH & ORS.

2015 INSC 49414 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Kirpal Kaur filed a partition suit seeking her late husband's share in a Delhi building (schedule ‘B’ property). The trial court and the Delhi High Court held the property to be self‑acquired by her father‑in‑law and denied her any share. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the father‑in‑law’s

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABADversusM/S. SARVOTHAM CARE LIMITED

2015 INSC 41314 May 2015Disposed off

The case concerned the classification of Ketoconazole (Nizral) Shampoo for central excise purposes. The assessee argued that the product, containing 2% ketoconazole and marketed for the treatment of dandruff, should be classified under CHS 3003.10 as a pharmaceutical product, attracting 16% duty, whereas the revenue co

MAHILA RAMKALI DEVI AND OTHERSversusNANDRAM (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 41214 May 2015Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit in 1964 seeking declaration of title and possession of agricultural land based on a will executed by Ajuddhibai. The trial court upheld the will, rejected alleged sale deeds and granted possession to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, and the High Court reversed the decision, also reject

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 41814 May 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals and writ petitions filed by Bharti Airtel Ltd and other telecom operators seeking renewal or extension of their licences granted under Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The operators argued that the licences created a contractual right to extension and that the Government’s deci

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 41614 May 2015Dismissed

Joshi Technologies International Inc. entered into two Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) with the Union of India in 1995 for oil fields, but the contracts omitted any clause providing for deductions under Section 42 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Authorities initially allowed such deductions based on an

MIS. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.versusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GAUHATI & ORS.

2015 INSC 41714 May 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Mis. Dhrampal Satyapal Ltd., claimed exemption from excise duty under a 1999 notification for North‑Eastern industrial units, which was later withdrawn retrospectively by Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003. The Department issued recovery orders without a prior show‑cause notice, which the appellant arg

MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2015 INSC 41014 May 2015Disposed off

The Madras Bar Association challenged several provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 relating to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), alleging that their constitution and the qualifications for members violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supr

COMMON CAUSE & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2015 INSC 41914 May 2015Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined an interlocutory application by Common Cause seeking to bar CBI Director Ranjit Sinha from interfering in coal‑block allocation investigations and to order a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe alleged abuse of authority. The Director had retired, rendering the recusal request moot, but

RAJDEEP SARDESAIversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

2015 INSC 41514 May 2015Dismissed

The appellants, a group of journalists and media houses, were charged with defamation for publishing a news item that alleged the Additional Commissioner of Police, Rajiv Trivedi, facilitated the Sohrabuddin encounter. The second respondent obtained a previous sanction under Section 199(4)(b) of the Criminal Procedure

M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) JAM NAGAR

2015 INSC 41114 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Tata Chemicals Ltd. imported low‑ash metallurgical coal and claimed exemption from basic customs duty under Notification No.35/90, which exempts coking coal with ash content below 12%. The customs inspector, without the presence of a company representative and contrary to Indian Standard IS 436, drew his own samples an

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERSversusANIL KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER ,

2015 INSC 99814 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh to a Allahabad High Court order that, in a writ petition seeking quashment of an FIR, issued sweeping procedural directions for criminal trials, including mandating production of accused with Section 173 reports, requiring police stations to install p

SAVITRI DEVIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2015 INSC 40914 May 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined challenges to land acquisitions in Noida and Greater Noida made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the State invoked Section 17’s urgency provisions to dispense with the Section 5A objection right. The High Court had held the urgency invocation illegal but, because substantial develo

DEVI DAS RAMACHANDRA TULJAPURKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.

2015 INSC 41414 May 2015Disposed off

The appeal concerned a poem titled "Gandhi Mala Bhetala" published in a private bulletin, for which the author, publisher and printer were charged under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code for obscenity. The Supreme Court examined whether the use of Mahatma Gandhi’s name as an allusion or symbol heightened the applica

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusARUN GEORGE & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2015 INSC 3514 January 2015Dismissed

The State of Kerala sanctioned new aided courses in private colleges on the condition that it would incur no additional financial commitment. The private college management appointed seven teachers for these courses under the Direct Payment Agreement, but the university rejected their appointments citing lack of vacanc

VIJAYA UKARDA ATHOR (ATHAWALE)versusSTATE OF.MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2015 INSC 3914 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Vijaya Ukarda Athor, daughter of a deceased municipal employee, applied for a compassionate appointment in 1997 as a minor and again in 1998 after attaining majority. She married in 2009, and the corporation appointed the deceased's illegitimate son in 2012, rejecting her claim on the ground that only unmarried daughte

RAJINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 3614 January 2015Dismissed

Rajinder Kumar was convicted for the dowry death of his wife, Raj Rani, who was allegedly harassed by him and his family for a demand of Rs 20,000 after marriage. The deceased’s brothers, Ganpat Rai and Hari Chand, testified that the harassment occurred shortly before her death, which was caused by aluminium phosphide

SUNILversusSAKSHI @ SHWETA & ANR.

2015 INSC 4114 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Family Court initially proceeded ex parte when the wife could not be served. The wife later appeared, the ex parte order was set aside, and the case was adjourned for conciliation, but she remained absent at subsequent hearings. The Fa

DILIP KUMAR MONDAL & ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2015 INSC 3714 January 2015Disposed off

The appellants were convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) for assaulting the deceased, Nripen Debnath, when his bullock cart entered the appellants' field. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the eye‑witness PW‑3, the omission of certain details in the complaint, and the alleged political motive behind the prose

NATIONAL BANK LIMITEDversusGHANSHYAM DAS AGARWAL & ORS.

2015 INSC 3414 January 2015Dismissed

The case concerned a Letter of Credit (LC) issued by National Bank Limited (the opening bank) for a rice export from India to Bangladesh. The bank certified photocopies of shipping documents to the importer without the exporter’s or negotiating bank’s knowledge, which the importer used to obtain the goods. The exporter

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSALMAN SALIM KHAN

2015 INSC 95214 January 2015Disposed off

Salman Salim Khan was convicted under Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The Rajasthan High Court suspended his conviction, allowing him to travel abroad for his acting profession, but the UK denied his visa on the basis of the conviction. The State of Rajasthan

K.V.S. RAMversusBANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION

2015 INSC 3814 January 2015

The appellant, a driver employed by Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation since 1985, was charged in 1990 with securing his appointment by a false transfer certificate. An enquiry was initiated in 1992 but the report was only submitted in 2002, leading to a dismissal order in 2004. The appellant challenged the d

SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATTversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 76713 October 2015Dismissed

Senior IPS officer Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking transfer of investigations into two criminal cases to the CBI or a fresh Special Investigation Team (SIT), alleging that he was present at a 2002 Gujarat meeting, that the Court‑appointed SIT leaked confidential material, and that hi

VEDICAPROCON PRIVATE LIMITEDversusBALLESHWAR GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS

2015 INSC 57313 August 2015Dismissed

The case concerned the auction of a free‑hold land of a company in liquidation. The Company Judge accepted the highest bid of Vedica Procon Private Ltd. (Rs 148 crore) on 17‑12‑2013 and the official liquidator treated the order as confirming the sale. The unsuccessful bidder, Balleshwar Greens Pvt. Ltd., later offered

STANTECH PROJECT ENGG. PVT. LTD.versusNICCO CORPORATION LTD.

2015 INSC 57013 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Stantech Project Engineering Pvt Ltd filed winding‑up petitions against Nicco Corporation Ltd for unpaid debts that the respondent had admitted. The Company Judge allowed the respondent’s counsel to obtain a concession to pay the debt in installments, thereby postponing the publication of the winding‑up petition. The r

STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERSversusS. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 57213 August 2015Dismissed

The State of Kerala appealed against the Kerala High Court’s order quashing an FIR that alleged offences under Sections 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 of the IPC based on a suicide note left by the deceased, a senior investigating officer. The Supreme Court examined whether the suicide note established a prima facie case

VIJAY MALLYAversusENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MIN. OF FINANCE

2015 INSC 49313 July 2015Dismissed

Vijay Mallya, Chairman of United Breweries Ltd., was summoned under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) to appear before the Enforcement Directorate regarding alleged violations of foreign exchange rules in a Benetton advertising agreement. He failed to appear on several summons, leading to a

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 40413 May 2015Disposed off

Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking to restrain the Union and State governments from using public funds for advertisements that project individual functionaries or political parties, and asked the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines. The Court, invoking

DEVI MULTIPLEX &ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2015 INSC 40613 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Gujarat government introduced the New Package Scheme of Incentives for Tourism Projects (1995-2000) offering tax holidays and a two‑year initial operational period extendable by two more years. Devi Multiplex obtained a temporary registration certificate in 1999 and began construction, but progress was halted by a

HINDUSTAN ZINC LTDversusRAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

2015 INSC 99613 May 2015Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered appeals by Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and other captive power generators challenging the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (RERC) Renewable Energy Obligation Regulations of 2007 and 2010, which require them to purchase a minimum quantum of electricity from renewable sources. The appell

KALI AERATED WATER WORKS, SALEMversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI

2015 INSC 40513 May 2015Disposed off

Kali Aerated Water Works, a small‑scale unit manufacturing aerated water under the brand "Kalimark", applied for exemption from excise duty under Notification 1/93‑CE (as amended). The Central Excise Department denied the exemption, contending that the brand name belonged to a third party, K.P.R. Shakthivel, and that t

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABADversusMIS. ESSAR STEEL LTD.

2015 INSC 31813 April 2015Dismissed

Essar Steel Ltd. entered into a technical services agreement with Met Chem Canada Inc. to obtain consultancy for setting up a steel plant in India, and subsequently placed a purchase order for the plant and machinery. The Customs authority added the fee for the technical services (DM 78.95 million) to the customs value

THE GUJARAT MARITIME BOARDversusG.C. PANDYA

2015 INSC 98913 April 2015Case Partly allowed

G.C. Pandya, a former Deputy Engineer of the Gujarat Maritime Board, was disciplined and censured in 2002 and superannuated as Superintending Engineer. He sued for a declaration that the departmental enquiry and punishment were illegal and sought promotion to Chief Engineer effective 1 January 2002. The Board did not f

GANGA DHAR KALITAversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 32113 April 2015Dismissed

The appellant Ganga Dhar Kalita was accused of forging signatures of three persons, including a minor, to execute a power of attorney for the sale of land, leading to an FIR under several IPC sections. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quash of the criminal proce

INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHERversusBATIENAPATLA VEN KATA RATNAM AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 31913 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Inspector of Police filed a criminal appeal after the High Court quashed proceedings against several Sub‑Registrars on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had been obtained. The respondents were alleged to have conspired with stamp vendors and fabricated records to

TUKARAM DNYANESHWAR PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2015 INSC 21713 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Dnyaneshwar Patil was attacked by three accused over a field boundary dispute, sustaining fatal injuries; his brother intervened and was also assaulted. The trial court convicted the accused of murder under s.302 IPC read with s.34, but the High Court reduced the conviction to culpable homicide not amounti

AMARKANT RAIversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2015 INSC 21513 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Amarkant Rai, was appointed as a night guard on daily wages by the college principal in 1983, a position for which the principal lacked statutory authority under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Although the university later decided to regularise employees who had served for more than a year, the

M/S. JAYASWAL NECO LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

2015 INSC 96913 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Jay​aswal NECO Ltd., a pig‑iron manufacturer, claimed MODVAT credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules for railway‑track material installed inside its plant to transport hot metal and raw materials. The Commissioner rejected the claim, holding that the tracks were not "capital goods" within Rule 570, and the Cu

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAL-111versusGRASIM INDUSTRIES

2015 INSC 21313 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Grasim Industries bought Electro‑Static Precipitators (ESPs) from BHEL for captive use in pollution control and paid the normal 15% excise duty instead of the concessional 5% rate. It claimed a refund of the excess duty (Rs 27,66,970) alleging that the duty was not passed on. The Revenue rejected the claim on the groun

SHASHIKALA & ORS.versusGANGALAKSHMAMMA & ANR.

2015 INSC 21213 March 2015Matter referred to larger bench

The deceased H.S. Ravi, a 45‑year‑old self‑employed transport businessman, died in a road accident on 14‑12‑2006. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 7,85,000 as compensation. The Karnataka High Court enhanced the award to Rs 14,69,372 by averaging the deceased’s income over two assessment years and applying

STATE OF M.P.versusMEHTAAB

2015 INSC 11513 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed a High Court order that reduced the imprisonment of Mehtaab, convicted under IPC sections 304A (causing death by negligence) and 337 (causing hurt), from one year and three months to merely ten days, the period already served. The incident involved Mehtaab laying a naked high‑voltag

NAYANKUMAR SHIVAPPA WAGHMAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2015 INSC 96413 February 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a public servant in the Finance Section of Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, was alleged to have demanded and accepted bribes from the complainant for expediting his sister's pension and GPF dues. The complainant, after paying part of the demanded money, was caught in a trap where the accused was found with the

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusRAJBIR SINGH

2015 INSC 11413 February 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals by the Union of India against the Armed Forces Tribunal’s orders granting disability pensions to several ex‑servicemen who were invalided out on medical grounds. The key issue was whether the disabilities were attributable to or aggravated by military service under Regulation 173 of

NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD.versusM/S. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

2015 INSC 11613 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) floated two tenders for construction work, requiring bidders to submit earnest money. The respondents, Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors., submitted bids with earnest money but later withdrew their bids and sought a refund. NTPC refused the refund, invoking Condition No.2 of the

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAMversusHINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ORS.

2015 INSC 2613 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether an Official Liquidator, appointed to wind up Premier Cable Company Ltd., qualifies as a "dealer" under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and consequently bears sales tax liability on the auction sale of the company's assets. The Court held that the liquidator, by stepping into th

SURINDER PAL KAUR AND ANOTHERversusSATPAL AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 95113 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, claiming to be landlords, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the respondents who asserted they were tenants of a temple. The respondents pointed to earlier proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wher

JT. COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DIST. & ANR. ETC.versusD. NARSING RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2015 INSC 2913 January 2015Dismissed

The appellants (the State) issued a notice under Section 1668/166B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act in 2004 seeking to cancel entries in the 1954‑55 Khasra Pahani, alleging fraudulent entries made decades earlier. The respondents, who had purchased the land, possessed it continuously since 1954 a

STATE OF U.P.versusOM PRAKASH

2015 INSC 2813 January 2015Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh prosecuted a group of 35 accused for the brutal murder of five villagers and grievous injuries to several others during a Holi celebration, allegedly as revenge for an electoral defeat of the accused's wife. The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 302, 149, 148, 307, 506 IPC and

SHASIDHAR & OTHERSversusSMT.ASHWINI UMA MATHAD &ANR.

2015 INSC 3013 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a partition suit filed by the daughters of Shashidhar against his father, step‑mother and step‑sisters over extensive family properties. The trial court granted a preliminary decree allocating shares, which the defendants appealed. The Karnataka High Court disposed of the first appeal in a brief orde

VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusSECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2015 INSC 2713 January 2015Disposed off

Videocon International Ltd. appealed against SEBI's order that some of its second appeals to the High Court were not maintainable after the amendment of Section 15Z of the SEBI Act. The amendment, effective 29‑Oct‑2002, shifted the second appellate forum from the High Court to the Supreme Court and limited the scope to

THE WORKING FRIENDS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2015 INSC 76312 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Working Friends Cooperative House Building Society challenged the compulsory acquisition of its 14.90 acres of land by the State of Punjab under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award of Rs 35,52,528 was made in 1995 but never paid to the society and was only deposited in the State Treasury. After the Right

H.S.L.D.C.versusPRAN SUKH & ORS.

2015 INSC 76512 October 2015Disposed off

The Manesar Industrial Welfare Association, representing beneficiaries of land acquired for the Haryana Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSI/DC), challenged a High Court order that enhanced compensation based on sale deeds of two private companies. The Supreme Court upheld that order, but the Asso

ASGER IBRAHIMAMINversusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 76412 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, who had served LIC for over 23 years and resigned after turning 50, sought pension under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, which were given retrospective effect. The corporation denied the claim, arguing that resignation forfeited pension rights. The Supreme Court e

M/S. K.C.P. LTD.versusGOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ORS.

2015 INSC 56612 August 2015Dismissed

M/S K.C.P. Ltd., a producer of industrial (rectified) spirit, challenged the Andhra Pradesh Rectified Spirits Rules, 1971 which required licences, excise duty and various fees for export. The appellants argued that the State could not tax industrial alcohol, that the fees were not a quid pro quo, and that the export fe

D.R. ENTERPRISES LTD.versusASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ORS.

2015 INSC 56512 August 2015Disposed off

D.R. Enterprises Ltd. imported a web printing machine in 1987 and claimed a concessional customs duty under the Open General Allowance (Notification No. 114/80-CUS). The Customs authorities disputed the claim, asserting that the machine's output capacity was only 25,000 copies per hour, below the required 30,000/35,000

K.K.GOHILversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 56912 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a government employee, completed nine years of service and was granted a higher grade pay scale under the 1994 Government Resolution. The departmental examination required for confirming the promotion was never conducted, yet the higher pay scale was later withdrawn on the ground of non‑passing of that e

STATE OF TAMIL NADU &ANR.versusTVL. SOUTH INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSN. & ORS.

2015 INSC 56712 August 2015Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu amended its Distillery Rules to raise the administrative service fee for industrial alcohol from Rs.0.50 to Rs.1 per bulk litre. The petitioners (industrial distilleries) challenged the increase, arguing that the fee must be based on a quid pro quo relationship between the State's expenses and t

S. M. ASIFversusVI RENDER KUMAR BAJAJ

2015 INSC 56412 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant, who admitted the tenancy but claimed an agreement to sell the premises and alleged payment of Rs. 82.5 lakhs, also filing a suit for specific performance. The trial court invoked Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC and passed a decree for eviction on the basis of the tenan

KALYAN CHEMICALSversusGOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ORS

2015 INSC 56812 August 2015Dismissed After

Kalyan Chemicals, a manufacturer of ethyl acetate, challenged the Andhra Pradesh Government's amendment of Rule 3 of the 1971 Denatured Spirit Rules, which introduced an administrative fee of 50 paise per bulk litre and was given retrospective effect from 25‑10‑1989. The appellant argued that the amendment could not be

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMANJEET SINGH

2015 INSC 40212 May 2015Dismissed

Manjeet Singh joined the Indian Army in 1999 and was later diagnosed with generalized tonic‑clonic seizures and neurotic depression, leading to his invalidation in 2002 with a composite disability of 20%. The Medical Board denied him a disability pension, concluding the ailments were constitutional and unrelated to ser

STATE OF HARYANAversusASHA DEVI AND ANR.

2015 INSC 40112 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The police seized 11 kg of ganja from Asha Devi’s residence after acting on secret information; her husband Om Prakash escaped. A search was conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer and samples were sealed with the letters “RP” and “MS”. The trial court acquitted the accused, relying on the absence of an indepen

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARAversusINDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPN. LTD. &ANR.

2015 INSC 40012 May 2015Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd (IPCL) demanding the full 16% excise duty on its C‑4 Raffinate, classifying it as butylene under heading 2711.12. IPCL contended that the product, a liquefied petroleum gas, fell under the partial exemption granted by

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2015 INSC 20812 March 2015Disposed off

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd purchased spare parts such as bumpers and grills, availed MODVAT credit, and subjected them to electro‑deposition (ED) coating before removing them from the factory for home consumption. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the value addition due to ED coating a

CHARU KISHOR MEHTAversusJOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, GREATER BOMBAY REGION & ORS.

2015 INSC 21012 March 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a permanent trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, alleged that the other trustees and the deceased managing trustee misappropriated trust assets and were guilty of non‑feasance and mal‑feasance. An application under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act was filed before the Joint Cha

M/S. MUNEER ENTERPRISESversusM/S RAMGAD MINERALS AND MINING LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 20912 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the mining lease M.L. No.2010 granted to Mis. Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd for forest land in Karnataka. Mis. Dalmia surrendered the lease in stages, culminating in a letter dated 27 March 2001 and the surrender of the lease book on 16 June 2001, which was accepted by the Director of Mines and Geology

KRIPA MANGAL KARYALAYA & ORS.versusNAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

2015 INSC 10912 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) gifted land to the public trust Gorakshan Sabha, which later leased it to Kripa Mangal Karyalaya. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) granted building permits for structures on the land, which respondents 5 and 6 challenged through a public interest litigation (PIL) before the Bomb

RAVEESH CHAND JAINversusRAJ RANI JAIN

2015 INSC 11112 February 2015Dismissed

The mother (respondent) sued her son (appellant) for possession of a property she claimed to have purchased with her own funds and for damages. The son contended the property was a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) asset bought with ancestral money. An earlier partition suit filed by the son was dismissed, which the mother

TAPAS KUMAR SAMANTAversusSARBANI SEN & ANR.

2015 INSC 11012 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Tapas Kumar Samanta filed an eviction suit against Sarbani Sen and others alleging non‑payment of rent, personal necessity to demolish the existing building for his own residence and business, waste, nuisance and unauthorized construction, invoking Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court dismissed

VINAYAK NARAYAN DEOSTHALIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2015 INSC 2412 January 2015Dismissed

Vinayak Narayan Deosthali, an Assistant Manager in the securities department of UCO Bank, was convicted by a Special Court for conspiring with broker Harshad Mehta and a fellow bank officer to manipulate Subsidiary General Ledger (SGL) accounts, causing loss to the bank and illegal gain to Mehta. The appellant argued t

SUDHIR N. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2015 INSC 2512 January 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Post‑Graduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008, which mandated that in‑service doctors be selected for postgraduate seats solely on the basis of seniority. The Court held that Regulation 9 of the Med

SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 91511 December 2015Disposed off

The petitioner, a District & Sessions Judge, challenged his premature retirement order issued under Rule 24 of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009, which relied on an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 2009 that rated him "Average". The Supreme Court held that the 2009 ACR was not a genuine assessment because it

COMMERCIAL MOTORS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P., LUCKNOW & OTHERS

2015 INSC 102111 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Commercial Motors Ltd., a dealer of two‑wheelers, was granted a sales‑tax exemption for the assessment year 1990‑91 based on certificates. The revenue later discovered a shortfall of Rs 97,02,050.65 and issued a show‑cause notice on 13 March 2002 under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, seeking reassessment

M/S. FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD. BANGALOREversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

2015 INSC 56111 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. sold its industrial undertaking in Thane (a notified urban area) and earned a capital gain of Rs 1,08,33,044. It paid advances of Rs 1,11,42,973 for purchase of land, plant, machinery and construction of a new factory in a non‑urban area and claimed exemption under s. 54G of the Income‑Tax Act

M.C.D. & ANR.versusM/S. MEHRASONS JEWELLERS (P) LTD.

2015 INSC 56011 August 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined two sets of appeals filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against Mehrsons Jewellers concerning the determination of rateable value for property tax. The first issue was whether assessments made after the 1994 Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Rateable Value) Bye‑Laws

CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITYversusCOSTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 56311 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd obtained loans from thirteen financial institutions which formed a consortium and appointed State Bank of India as a security trustee. The borrower executed a single mortgage deed (Indenture of Mortgage) with the trustee, paying Rs 4.21 lakh stamp duty. The Gujarat revenue authority demanded a

JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) &ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2015 INSC 55911 August 2015Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioners challenged the Aadhaar Card Scheme on the ground that the compulsory collection of biometric and demographic data violated the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Union of India and the UIDAI argued that the scheme is essential for the delivery of welfare benefits and

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSRI CHAND

2015 INSC 39711 May 2015Case Partly allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Sri Chand, who was charged with attempt to rape a 12‑year‑old girl and outraging her modesty. The trial court convicted him only under IPC s.354 and granted probation, while the High Court upheld that order. The Supreme Court held that the evidence did not prove the atte

THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNHB & ANR.versusS. SARASWATHY & ORS.

2015 INSC 39611 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) appealed against orders of the Madras High Court that had directed it to issue No Objection Certificates to purchasers of land that had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land in question had been notified for acquisition under Section 4 and a declaration under S

HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI AND ORS.versusDINESH KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. ETC.

2015 INSC 39811 May 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the promotion of Constables and Head Constables to Sub‑Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh, where the selection process was governed by a series of Government Orders (23‑01‑1999, 03‑02‑1999, 27‑02‑1999) that superseded the earlier Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, 1976. Unsuccessful candidates challe

GRAH RAKSHAK, HOME GUARDS WEL. ASSOversusSTATE OF H.P. & ORS.

2015 INSC 20311 March 2015Disposed off

The appellants, a Home Guards Welfare Association and its members from Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and the NCT of Delhi, sought regularisation of their service after serving for 10‑30 years, claiming entitlement to regular pay and benefits. The State governments contended that Home Guards are volunteers appointed under re

EDWARDversusINSPECTOR OF POLICE, AANDIMADAM POLICE STATION

2015 INSC 20211 March 2015Dismissed

The case arose from a land dispute in Perambalur district where the deceased, Michaelraj, was attacked with deadly weapons by the appellant and others on 10 December 1997. The sole eye‑witness, PW‑3, identified the accused and the trial court convicted them under sections 148, 149, 302 and 341 IPC. The Madras High Cour

KALYANI MATHIVANANversusK. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.

2015 INSC 20711 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan was appointed Vice‑Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University by a Tamil Nadu government order, but two writ petitions challenged her appointment on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2010. The High Court set aside the appointment, holdin

PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTALversusSTATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ANR.

2015 INSC 20411 March 2015Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of Manjunath, a sales officer of Indian Oil Corporation, who was killed after inspecting the petrol pump owned by Pawan Kumar (Monu Mittal). The prosecution relied heavily on confessional statements made by accused Nos. 4 and 7 to police officers, as well as a series of circumstantial evide

CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI & ORS.versusL.L.C. OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 95011 March 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by several Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) challenging a High Court order that set aside an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The core issue was whether these Development Officers qualified as "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the In

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMAJOR GENERAL SHRI KANT SHARMA & ANR.

2015 INSC 20611 March 2015Disposed off

The case concerned several writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The Union of India argued that Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, together with Articles 136(2) and 227(4) of the Constitution, bar High Court jurisdiction

ASHOKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2015 INSC 20511 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ashok, was convicted for the murder of his wife and two daughters based on the "last seen together" doctrine, with the trial court shifting the burden of proof to him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, a purported motive of obtaining Rs.2 lakh from t

BHIM SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF UTIARAKHAND

2015 INSC 10711 February 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the death of Prema Devi, who died within five months of marriage with extensive burn injuries and traces of poison. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband Bhim Singh and his brothers in connection with dowry demands, invoking Sections 304‑B of

DASIN BAI@ SHANTI BAIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2015 INSC 10511 February 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Dasin Bai, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for setting the deceased, Raju Rajak, on fire after pouring kerosene on him. The prosecution relied on the victim's oral dying declaration recorded in hospital, which was corroborated by two eyewitnesses present at the time. The defence argued that

SONU GUPTAversusDEEPAK GUPTA & ORS.

2015 INSC 10411 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sonu Gupta, alleged that a withdrawn dowry harassment complaint was tampered with and a photocopy was used to register FIR No.73/2002 against her husband and his relatives, facilitating their anticipatory bail. She filed a criminal complaint in 2010 claiming forgery of the FIR. The Judicial Magistrate, a

KRISHNA HARE GAURversusVINOD KUMAR TYAGI & ORS.

2015 INSC 10811 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Krishna Hare Gaur, challenged the appointment of respondent No.1 as headmaster on the ground that the latter had used forged experience certificates, violating the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools Rules which require five years of teaching experience. The High Court initially dismissed the appellant's writ

BIPINCHANDRA GAMANLAL CHOKSHI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 91310 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bipinchandra Gamanlal Chokshi, was detained on 11 June 1976 under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, with a simultaneous declaration under Section 12A during a national emergency. The declaration was revoked on 21 March 1977 when the emergency ended, and the appellant was released the same day. He later chal

ASSTI. COMMR. OF L.T. BANGALOREversusM/S. MICRO LABS LTD.

2015 INSC 104210 December 2015

The case concerned Micro Labs Ltd., which claimed deductions under Sections 80‑IA/80‑IB (infrastructure development) and also under Section 80‑HHC (export profits). The Revenue argued that Section 80‑IA(9) bars any further deduction under heading "C" of Chapter VI‑A, which includes 80‑HHC, for the same profits, while t

RAJBALA & OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

2015 INSC 91210 December 2015Dismissed

The petitioners challenged four new disqualification clauses (t, u, v, w) inserted in Section 175(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, arguing that they violated Article 14 by creating unreasonable classifications and that the right to vote and the right to contest elections are fundamental constitutional rights

YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Disposed off

The petitioners, senior public servants accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known income under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenged the constitutionality of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, which created special courts for s

RAMENDRA@ RAMAN DHULDHUEversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a junior assistant in the Indore Regional Transport Office, was investigated for possessing property allegedly acquired through corrupt means under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 came into force, the Special Judge dec

BALBHADRA PARASHARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a manager of a primary agriculture credit cooperative society, was charged under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for amassing assets beyond his known income, and a sanction to prosecute was granted. The appellant challenged the sanction before the High Court under Section 482 o

AGversusSHIV KUMAR YADAV &ANR.

2015 INSC 65410 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered two criminal appeals filed by the Attorney General against the High Court’s order allowing the recall of all prosecution witnesses in a rape trial after the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC had been recorded. The accused argued that his earlier counsel was incompetent and that the

DR. (SMT.) MANORAMA TIWARI AND OTHERSversusSURENDRA NATH RAI

2015 INSC 102010 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the death of a 14‑year‑old girl who underwent surgery in a government hospital performed by three medical officers. The girl's father filed a criminal complaint alleging murder under Section 304A of the IPC. The doctors filed an application under Section 197 of the CrPC seeking a sanction from the Sta

A.N. SACHDEVA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.versusMAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK &ANR.

2015 INSC 55510 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, former employees of Punjab University and Kurukshetra University who later joined Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), claimed that their uninterrupted service in the earlier universities should be counted as qualifying service for pension under MDU's 1997 pension scheme. The university rejected the clai

RAJA @ RAJINDERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 31210 April 2015Dismissed

The appellant Raja Rajinder was convicted of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC sections 302, 201 and 34, based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution established that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, that a knife, blood‑stained clothes and burnt blanket were rec

LAXMIversusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 31710 April 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition filed by acid‑attack victims, examined the implementation of its earlier directions in Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) requiring a minimum compensation of Rs.3 lakh per victim and full medical assistance. The Court noted that several states and Union Territories had not fixed t

SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2015 INSC 31410 April 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered two interlocutory applications (IA No.6 and IA No.7) filed in Civil Appeals Nos. 226‑227 of 2015 arising out of Swapna Sukumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. The applicant indicated that IA No.6 was not to be pressed, and the Court dismissed it as not pressed. IA No.7 was examined and the

M/S. UTC FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR

2015 INSC 98810 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

UTC Fire and Security India Ltd manufactures smoke detectors that are sold either in loose form or as part of turnkey fire‑fighting projects. The Central Excise authorities valued the detectors used captively in the turnkey contracts by applying Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 4 of the 1975 Val

MS.SversusSUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

2015 INSC 31110 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Ms S, a minor, was raped by Sunil Kumar while guarding her crops. She reported the incident immediately, and a medical examination corroborated her account; three eyewitnesses also attested to the rape. The trial court acquitted the accused because no test identification parade had been conducted, despite the victim id

HARMONY INNOVATION SHIPPING LTD.versusGUPTA COAL INDIA LTD. &ANR.

2015 INSC 20110 March 2015Dismissed

Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. entered into a charter agreement with Gupta Coal India Ltd. that stipulated arbitration in London, governed by English law, and specified the arbitrators as members of the London Arbitration Association. The appellant sought interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilia

AMBIKAPATHI AMMAL & ANR.versusSRI KANDASWAMY KOIL BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER THIRUPORUR

2015 INSC 18710 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Ambikapathi Ammal & Anr., claimed ownership of certain lands on the basis of Patta No.1 and sued Sri Kandaswamy Koil (by its executive officer) for possession. The respondents argued that they were permanent ryots under the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908, that the land formed part of an estate abolis

SATISH KUMAR JAYANTI LAL DABGARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2015 INSC 19310 March 2015Dismissed

Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar was convicted under IPC sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping for marriage) and 376 (rape) for abducting and raping a girl who was under sixteen years of age. The trial court sentenced him to three years for kidnapping, five years for kidnapping for marriage and seven years rigorous

JIBAN KRISHNA MONDAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2015 INSC 96710 March 2015Dismissed

The appellants, members of the West Bengal Home Guards, claimed that they were in the service of the State, performed duties akin to police constables and were therefore entitled to regularisation and pay parity with police personnel. The State and the Union of India contended that Home Guards are volunteers who receiv

BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2015 INSC 18510 March 2015Disposed off

The appellants, land owners, challenged acquisition proceedings originally under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and after the 2013 Act came into force, sought a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Th

GURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 18910 March 2015Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of Jagsir Singh on 17 October 1998. The prosecution alleged that Gurjit Singh alias Gora and Surjit Singh alias Sukha, armed with spades (kassi), struck the victim on the head and face after being urged by their parents, Gurdial Singh and Surjit Kaur, to teach the victim a lesson. The accu

RAJ KUMAR RANAversusRITA RATHORE

2015 INSC 18810 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The husband Raj Kumar Rana married Rita Rathore in 1997, but they separated in February 1998 after the wife gave birth to a son and never returned to the marital home. The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which was dismissed by both the tri

PREMIER BREWERIES LTD., KARNATAKAversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

2015 INSC 18410 March 2015Dismissed

Premier Breweries Ltd., a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages, claimed deductions under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act for commissions paid to agents for securing supply orders from state marketing corporations. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) but reversed by

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT, KOCHI & ORS.versusJALAJA DILEEP &ANR.

2015 INSC 19910 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a petition by the owners of a 12.286‑cent plot in Ernakulam district seeking to have the land re‑classified as dry land (‘purayidam’) in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. The High Court, relying on Section 18 of the Land Tax Act, directed the Tahsildar to correct the B

VIJAYPALversusSTATE (GNCT) OF DELHI

2015 INSC 19410 March 2015Dismissed

Vijay Pal was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly setting his wife Savitri on fire with kerosene after a domestic quarrel. The prosecution relied on the oral dying declaration of the deceased to her brother, corroborative medical evidence showing 100% burns and kerosene residues, and eyewitness testimony of r

MD.ALL @ GUDDUversusSTATE OF U.P.

2015 INSC 19010 March 2015Dismissed

The appellants were convicted by the trial court and the Allahabad High Court for kidnapping and rape under IPC sections 363, 366 and 376 based largely on the testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother. The FIR was lodged eleven days after the alleged kidnapping, and the mother failed to file a missing report, raising

V.C. CHINNAPPA GOUDARversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.

2015 INSC 96810 March 2015Dismissed

The appellants, who were public servants, were prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. They contended that, as public servants, prosecution required prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was not obtained. The Supreme Court examine

D. VELAYUTHAMversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN, CHENNAI

2015 INSC 19110 March 2015Dismissed

The case involved two excise officers, a superintendent (Accused 1) and his subordinate (Accused 2), who demanded bribes from a manufacturer after issuing an illegal show‑cause notice. The complainant reported the demand, and a police‑led trap was set up; the bribe money was handed to Accused 2, who was caught and the

SHARAD KUMAR SANGHIversusSANGITA RANE

2015 INSC 96110 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sharad Kumar Sanghi, Managing Director of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Ltd., was charged under Section 420 IPC for allegedly cheating a buyer by delivering a vehicle with a replaced engine after an accident. The complaint, filed under Section 200 of the CrPC, primarily alleged wrongdoing by the company but d

M/S BENNET COLEMAN & CO. LTDversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS

2015 INSC 10310 February 2015Case Allowed

The case concerned a criminal prosecution of Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd under Section 25U read with Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act for allegedly failing to implement the recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board constituted under the Working Journalists Act. The High Court had held the complaint maintainable;

RUCHIKA ABBI &ANR.versusSTATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.

2015 INSC 9079 December 2015Disposed off

The wife filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the production and return of her minor daughter from the husband. The High Court dismissed the petition and directed the Family Court to decide the pending custody case. On appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the Family Court to dispose of the guardianship case on its merit

M/S GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD &ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

2015 INSC 9069 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011 levied a market fee and development cess on any agricultural produce arriving in a notified market area for sale, storage, processing, manufacturing or other commercial purposes. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd and other manufacturers, who

SODEXO SVC INDIAPRIVATE LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2015 INSC 9089 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Sodexo Service India Private Ltd issues paper‑based meal vouchers to corporate customers, who distribute them to their employees for redemption at affiliated restaurants. The vouchers are redeemed for food, with Sodexo receiving a service fee and reimbursing affiliates for the face value. The issue before the Supreme C

SAT PARKASHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 9099 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Sat Parkash was convicted under IPC sections 363, 366, 366-A and 376 for allegedly kidnapping, forcing marriage, procuration and raping a 15‑year‑old girl, Sushila, who later died by suicide. The appellant challenged the conviction on the basis of Sushila's suicide note, which stated she left home of her own free will

PREMIUM GLOBAL SECURITIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusSECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR.

2015 INSC 9049 December 2015Disposed off

Premium Global Securities Pvt. Ltd. (PGSL) transferred its National Stock Exchange (NSE) trading membership from its predecessor, Premium Capital Market & Investments Ltd. (PCMIL), after SEBI’s Rule 8(1)(f) and 8(3)(f) of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Rules, 1957 barred a company from carrying fund‑based and tra

OM PRAKASH SHARMA@O.P. JOSHIversusRAJENDRA PRASAD SHEWDA & ORS.

2015 INSC 7589 October 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over a property in Purulia that had been purchased by Jagannath Joshi with his funds but registered in his wife Moni Debi's name. The Court held that such a purchase, made for the wife's security, is a benami transaction where the wife is the real owner. The plaintiff's claim that h

M/S. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS.

2015 INSC 7569 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Spentex Industries Ltd., manufactured polyester yarns, paid excise duty on both the raw materials and the finished products, and exported the goods. It claimed rebate of duty on both inputs and final goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, filing 45 rebate applications. The Revenue rejecte

YALLAWA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2015 INSC 10319 October 2015Dismissed

The case arose from a 1991 incident in which a group of accused set fire to the house of Channabasappa, resulting in the death of ten persons. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting them under various IPC provisions including murder, arson and criminal con

VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS.versusMOHAN HIRACHAND SHAH & ORS.

2015 INSC 7579 October 2015Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed suits for injunction against construction companies and later amended them to seek a declaration of title over 14.5 acres of land, claiming inheritance from their grandfather Amarsi Gujjar. The defendants, impleaded later, denied the plaintiffs' title, asserting that the land was held on behalf of

RAZIAAMIRALI SHROFF AND OTHERSversusM/S NISHUVI CORPORATION AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 7629 October 2015Disposed off

The petitioners filed a Notice of Motion (No.3616 of 2010) in the Bombay High Court seeking interim reliefs during the pendency of a suit. The Single Judge declined to grant any ad‑interim order, directing the parties to file affidavits and setting a hearing date. The petitioners appealed, but the Division Bench upheld

DULU DEVIversusSTATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 7599 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Oulu Devi, a teacher appointed in 1976 and regularised in 1989, served continuously for over 25 years. After a period of non-payment of salary, a High Court order directed the authorities to release her salary and investigate regularisation, which they complied with. Later, the authorities stopped her salary along with

H.S.SIDHUversusDEVENDRA BAPNA & ORS.

2015 INSC 10179 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

H.S. Sidhu and Devendra Bapna, both direct recruits as Assistant Directors, were promoted to Deputy Director, with Bapna senior to Sidhu. When a vacancy for Joint Director arose, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) prepared a merit list under Rule 15(3) of the 1987 Rules, placing Sidhu ahead of Bapna based on hi

SUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 10189 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation was wound up in 1999, leaving a group of employees retrenched under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees Rules, 1991. Earlier Supreme Court judgments had affirmed that such employees were entitled to be absorbed in government service despite the later rescissio

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusANAND MOHAN &ANR.

2015 INSC 4929 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who were public servants, were accused of corrupt practices in the construction of a sub‑station and the Economic Offences Wing sought prior sanction for their prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Administrative Department declined to grant sanction, and the Special Judge direc

OM PRAKASHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 4919 July 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a soldier, was involved in a drunken altercation at a farewell party where the deceased Dafadar Ram Pratap attempted to intervene and was later found stabbed to death. The appellant surrendered to police, gave a voluntary confession, and was tried before a General Court Martial, which convicted him of cu

RAVINDER KAURversusANIL KUMAR

2015 INSC 3019 April 2015Disposed off

The appellant and respondent were married in 1991. The respondent obtained an ex‑parte decree of divorce in January 1994, which was later set aside in February 1996, thereby restoring the marriage. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under IPC s.376, which was dismissed without trial, and subsequently filed anothe

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusBAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH & ORS.

2015 INSC 3059 April 2015Dismissed

Bajrang Bahadur Singh was elected to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 2012 and subsequently entered into four contracts with the State. The Governor, under Article 192, declared Singh disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, causing his seat to be declared vacant and a bye‑e

ANIL JOSHI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 1829 March 2015Disposed off

The petitioners, former Range Officers of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department, claimed that a 1983 letter from the Director of Forest Education promised them direct recruitment as Assistant Conservators of Forest, invoking promissory estoppel. The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissed their applications

KHURSHEED AHMAD KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2015 INSC 1019 February 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a government irrigation supervisor in Uttar Pradesh, was removed from service for contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting, in violation of Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. He claimed that he had divorced his first wife before the second ma

SITIKANATHA MISHRAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 179 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was initially appointed as Professor on a three‑year contract in 1997 and later regularized by a Central Government order of 31 October 2006, which was applied retrospectively to his date of joining. He subsequently took up a higher post of Director on a contract basis in 2006 and, after completing that t

SHER SINGH @ PARTAPAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 219 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sher Singh, was convicted under Sections 3048 and 498A IPC for the alleged dowry‑related suicide of his wife, Harjinder Kaur, who had reportedly complained of dowry harassment two months before her death. The prosecution alleged that the husband and his family demanded a motorcycle and a fridge, leading

AHMED SHAH & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015 INSC 169 January 2015Disposed off

The case arose from a land dispute in which the complainant party attempted to forcibly take possession of a field owned by Ahmed Shah. A sudden scuffle ensued, during which Ahmed Shah and Gurmukh Singh inflicted fatal injuries on Sabbir Shah, while other accused injured Rakhu Shah and Rakhia. The trial court convicted

SUNIL BHARTI MITTALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2015 INSC 189 January 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a Special Judge could summon individuals who were not named in the CBI charge‑sheet in the 2G spectrum case, on the basis that they were the "alter ego" of the companies charged. The Court held that while a magistrate may summon a non‑named person if prima facie material exists, the S

CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECRGR CENTRAL BANK A OF INDIA & ORS.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE "ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2015 INSC 209 January 2015Case Partly allowed

The case concerned whether SC/ST employees of public sector banks are entitled to reservation in promotions from one officer scale to the next. The banks relied on Office Memoranda dated 1‑Nov‑1990 and 13‑Aug‑1997, arguing that they only provided a concession and not reservation for Group‑A posts with a salary ceiling

M/S. KAILASH NATH ASSOCIATESversusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

2015 INSC 229 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Kailash Nath Associates, the highest bidder in a Delhi Development Authority (ODA) public auction, deposited 25% earnest money (Rs 78 lakhs) and was later asked to pay the balance 75% with interest. ODA extended the payment deadline twice, but eventually cancelled the allotment and forfeited the earnest money, cit

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusB.P.L. LIMITED

2015 INSC 199 January 2015Dismissed

B.P.L. Ltd., facing severe financial distress, sought approval of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (the appellant) was a secured creditor with a hypothecation charge registered against B.P.L. but later argued that a consent arbitratio

RATTAN SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2015 INSC 8968 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the award predates the 2013 Act by at least five years and either possession has not been

A. ANDISAMY CHETTIARversusA. SUBBURAJ CHETTIAR

2015 INSC 9008 December 2015Disposed off

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction over a disputed property and lost at trial. He appealed, and during the pendency of the appeal filed an application seeking scientific examination of a will's signature. The first appellate court allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27, but the defendant obtain

PURNIMA MANTHENA AND ANOTHERversusDR. RENUKA DATLA & OTHERS

2015 INSC 7388 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose in Biological E. Ltd. after the death of its promoter, when the widow (respondent No.1) and her three daughters were appointed directors. The widow challenged the validity of board meetings held on 9‑4‑2013, 10‑4‑2013 and 11‑4‑2013, the appointment of her daughters as directors and the continuance of

RAM BAHAL &ANR.versusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH & ORS.

2015 INSC 7508 October 2015Dismissed

The appeal concerned plots in Azamgarh where the appellants claimed ownership by adverse possession and payment of compensation, while the respondents sought expunction of the appellants' names from revenue records. The Consolidation Officer ordered expunction, the Settlement Officer later recorded the appellants as Se

AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD.versusMRS. NISCHINT BHALLA & ORS.

2015 INSC 7538 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The suit concerned the administration of the estate of the deceased Durga Devi Hitkari, wherein a property at Chembur was to be sold. The appellant, Avenue Supermart Ltd., submitted the highest bid of Rs.20,15,00,000, which was accepted by all parties and an order dated 10‑02‑2009 by the single judge of the Bombay High

YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI &ANR.versusBUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO & ORS.

2015 INSC 7558 October 2015Case Partly allowed

In a partition suit, the defendants sought to introduce two unregistered documents (Exhibit B‑21, a deed of memorandum, and Exhibit B‑22, an agreement) to prove the division of property. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the documents inadmissible, reasoning that they were compulsorily registerable

NARAYAN LAXMAN PATILversusM/S GALA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2015 INSC 7518 October 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Narayan Laxman Patil, sought entry of his and six others' names in the "other rights" column of the Record of Rights for 11 acres of land in Village Eksar, claiming long uninterrupted possession and cultivation. The original owner, Kamlakar Narayan Samant, had sold the land to Gala Construction Co., whic

STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIRversusR.K. ZALPURI AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 7548 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed senior assistant R.K. Zalpuri in 1999 for alleged misappropriation of funds. Zalpuri filed a writ petition in 2006 challenging his dismissal, alleging non‑compliance with Rule 34 of the J&K Civil Services Rules. The State raised a preliminary objection of inordinate, unexplained d

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.versusALEXIS SONIER & ANR.

2015 INSC 7528 October 2015Disposed off

The claimant, an American citizen, was injured when a Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bus struck him during a peace march in India. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, including US$125,348.01 for medical expenses covered by California's Medi‑Cal program, and Rs.10 lakhs for a lifelong a

M/S. NRC LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 10308 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/s NRC Limited imported caprolactam and was assessed additional customs duty on the CIF value as well as on basic, auxiliary duties and landing charges. While the dispute was pending, the Government introduced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) under the Finance Act, 1998, allowing declarants to settle tax arrears b

BALJINDER PAL KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 10168 September 2015Dismissed

Baljinder Pal Kaur, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Punjab Police, was dismissed after a departmental enquiry found her guilty of taking a bribe to illegally send persons to the USA. A criminal trial under IPC sections 406, 420, 1208 and the Prevention of Corruption Act resulted in her acquittal by a Special Court, with

TATA IRON & STEEL COMPANY LTD.versusDISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS.

2015 INSC 10158 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Tata Iron & Steel Co. owned 57 vehicles used exclusively for its own business and employee welfare, such as tipper trucks for coal handling, explosive vans, water and diesel tankers, canteen vans and school buses. The District Transport Officer levied additional motor vehicle tax under s.6(1A) of the Bihar and Orissa M

J. THANSIAMAversusSTATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.

2015 INSC 6518 September 2015Dismissed

J. Thansiama filed a suit for declaration of title against the State of Mizoram. The trial court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to Mizoram and allowed the suit. The Gauhati High Court reversed this, holding that the Limitation Act was applicable and dismissed the suit as time‑barred. On appeal, the Su

NANDKISHORE LALBHAI MEHTAversusNEW ERA FABRICS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 4908 July 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta, entered into a sale agreement with the respondents for a plot in Mahim, subject to obtaining consent from the Mill Mazdoor Sabha (labour union) and various statutory permissions. The union refused consent, and the respondents declared the agreement cancelled and offered to retu

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSANKAR GHOSH & ORS.

2015 INSC 4898 July 2015Disposed off

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) awarded a contract to the Food Handling Co-operative Society in 1982, under which several workers performed duties such as dusting, picking and analysing. The workers claimed they were directly engaged by FCI as casual labourers and sought regularisation under the doctrine of equal p

M/S. MAAN ALUMINIUM LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

2015 INSC 3938 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Maan Aluminium Ltd., a manufacturer of aluminium profiles, was raided by excise officials who found unaccounted finished goods and issued a show‑cause notice alleging clandestine removal of those goods, demanding differential excise duty of Rs 64,82,565. The company contested, explaining that the weight differences aro

PURUSHOTIAM DASHRATH BORATE &ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2015 INSC 3928 May 2015Dismissed

The accused, a cab driver and his accomplice, abducted a young woman who was a night‑shift employee, gang‑raped her and murdered her in a pre‑planned, brutal manner. The prosecution proved the crime through a chain of circumstantial evidence, forensic findings and confessional statements, leading to convictions under I

SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF UTIARAKHAND)

2015 INSC 3958 May 2015Dismissed

On 24 September 1996, seven accused, armed with lathis, knives and khukris, demanded that two students withdraw their names from a college election at D.A.V. (P.G.) College, Dehradun. When the students refused, the accused assaulted them; Alok Chandana later died of his injuries while Vipin Singh Negi was also injured.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSHRI HANUMAN INDUSTRIES & ANR.

2015 INSC 3948 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and the North Eastern Council (NEC) implemented the Scheme of Promotion of Industries in North East (SPINE) to provide financial assistance to new industries. Several applicants obtained a court order in 2007 directing the authorities to process their applications, a decision later affirmed by the Su

RAJANversusJOSEPH & ORS.

2015 INSC 2918 April 2015Disposed off

The appellant, husband of a domestic worker who died from electric shock while operating a washing machine in the respondents' house, filed a private complaint under Section 304A of the IPC alleging negligent conduct by the employers. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the washing machine was

DHANUULALAND OTHERSversusGANESHRAMANDANOTHER

2015 INSC 2958 April 2015Dismissed

The dispute concerned a property inherited by Phoolbasa Bai after her husband's death and a subsequent sale of a portion of that property to Mukesh Kumar Chourasia. The plaintiff, Ganeshram, challenged both the validity of a 1977 will favouring Phoolbasa Bai's brothers and the 1987 sale deed, alleging that Phoolbasa Ba

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGADversusM/S. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 2948 April 2015Disposed off

The case involved the import of undenatured ethyl alcohol which the Customs Department alleged was undervalued and imported without a valid licence, leading to a demand for differential duty, penalties and confiscation. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the invoices showing a pri

JODHANversusSTATE OF M.P.

2015 INSC 9878 April 2015Dismissed

On 7 January 1984 a group of accused, including Jodhan, entered the house of the deceased and attacked the victims with lathis, farsa and handmade bombs, causing the death of the deceased. The trial court acquitted all accused, holding that the incident was a "free fight" and finding the prosecution evidence unreliable

S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC.versusCENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. ETC.

2015 INSC 2988 April 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered appeals by several coal traders (including S.J. Coke Industries) seeking a refund of excess amounts paid under a government‑mandated e‑auction scheme for coal, which had been declared ultra vires and void by the Court in the Ashoka Smokeless Coal case. The Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) oppo

DR. AMBICA PRASADversusMD. ALAM AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 2998 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Ambica Prasad filed an eviction suit against Abdul Karim, claiming ownership of the tenanted premises through exchange deeds executed with his brother, the original owner. The trial court held that the appellant was not the landlord, but the appellate court reversed this, finding him to be the landlord based on ren

VOLTAS LTD.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2015 INSC 2908 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Voltas Ltd. entered into a works contract to fabricate and install a water‑chilling plant for Anupam Colours & Chemicals. The Gujarat tax authority classified the contract under Entry 2 of the 1993 Notification, levying a 15% composition tax, whereas Voltas argued it fell under Entry 5, attracting only 5%. The High Cou

MAJOR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2015 INSC 9868 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Karamjit Kaur died of phosphorus poisoning within two and a half years of her marriage, and the prosecution alleged that her husband and in‑laws harassed her over a dowry demand for a scooter. The trial court convicted the husband, father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law under Section 304B (referred to as 3048) IP

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABADversusM/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD. & ANR.

2015 INSC 2938 April 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the holding company Shaw Wallace and its subsidiary Detergents India Ltd. were "related persons" under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and whether proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a) applied to the valuation of excisable goods sold at a lower price. The Court hel

VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 158 January 2015Dismissed

Vinod Kumar, a domestic servant, was accused of kidnapping his employer's 3‑year‑old son for ransom. The trial court acquitted him and co‑accused Joginder, but the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting Vinod Kumar under IPC sections 363, 364A and 109. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was entitl

DARGA RAM @ GUNGAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015 INSC 148 January 2015Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Darga Ram @ Gunga, was convicted by the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court for the rape and murder of a seven‑year‑old girl, Kamala, based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime scene, blood‑group matches, and injuries on his body. The Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial

SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2015 INSC 9508 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the appointment of High School Assistant (Physical Sciences) in Kerala. The appellants, who held Chemistry degrees (some with post‑graduation) and B.Ed. in Physical Sciences, were initially placed in the Service Commission’s ranking list but later had their names deleted. The High Court and Tribunal

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

2015 INSC 8917 December 2015Matter referred to larger bench

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (appellant) sold steel products to Indian Railways under a contract containing a price‑escalation clause. The goods were cleared and excise duty paid on the original price; later the price was revised upward and the appellant paid a differential duty of Rs.142.78 crore. The Revenue cla

MAYA DEVI & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 8927 December 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the appeal of Maya Devi and others convicted under Sections 3048 and 498A of the IPC for the death of their daughter-in‑law, Kavita. The Court reiterated that to establish a dowry death, the prosecution must prove (i) death within seven years of marriage, (ii) death caused by burns, bodily in

PARIVARTAN KENDRAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 8937 December 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ under Article 32 on behalf of two Dalit sisters who were victims of a brutal acid attack in Bihar. The petitioners argued that the compensation of Rs 3 lakhs per victim prescribed in the earlier Laxmi judgment was grossly inadequate given the extensive physical, psyc

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusNORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.

2015 INSC 7457 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana acquired land in 1973 for a sheet‑glass factory and conveyed it to Northern Indian Glass Industries Ltd. (NIGI) under a deed that prohibited sale without the State’s written permission and required construction of the factory within a stipulated period. NIGI failed to build the plant, sold portions

M/S. STAR INDUSTRIESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), RAIGAD

2015 INSC 7487 October 2015Dismissed

M/S. Star Industries imports roasted molybdenum ore concentrate for ferro‑alloy production and claims exemption from customs counter‑vailing duty under Notification No. 4/2006‑CE, which exempts "ores". The Customs Department contended that the imported material is a concentrate, not an ore, and therefore not covered by

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IVversusMIS. FITRITE PACKERS, MUMBAI

2015 INSC 7417 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Fitrite Packers purchased duty‑paid GI paper and printed logos and product names on it for customers such as Parle, delivering the printed paper in jumbo rolls. The Revenue argued that the printing process transformed the paper into a distinct commodity and therefore constituted manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Ce

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusM/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD.

2015 INSC 7427 October 2015Dismissed

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise challenged M/s Ispat Industries for allegedly evading excise duty by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal and including freight and transit‑insurance charges in the assessable value for the period 28‑09‑1996 to 31‑03‑2003. The Court examined the evolution

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusDEVANDER SAGAR & ORS.

2015 INSC 6477 September 2015Disposed off

The State of Haryana issued a Section 4 notification on 18‑Jan‑2001 to acquire land and invoked the urgency provisions of Section 17(1) and (4) without first tendering the statutorily required 80% compensation. A Section 6 declaration followed on 19‑Jan‑2001, but the land‑owners filed writ petitions challenging the not

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search